FIVE
How Does A Corps Continue To Thrive?
The Tab
The Tabernacle, a most fitting name for a congregation regularly on the move, has changed locations at least six times in its 117-year history. That’s an average of approximately once every 20 years. All but one of these changes took the corps to a different part of town. Maybe that pace is a factor in its continuing ability to thrive throughout that entire 117 years. Then again, perhaps it’s a deterrent to even greater success. Moves, however, appear not to have damaged certain basic ingredients that have built a strong congregation.
It began in 1886 as Los Angeles Corp #2 and was located on Central Avenue in downtown Los Angeles. It was then, and has been ever since, a “downtown” corps. An early picture reveals a large band in front of the corps building ready to march off, possibly to an open-air service. The building also provided housing and other assistance for the poor. It shows evidence of a strong congregational commitment to the Army ethic of both spiritual and social redemption.
We know very little about the beginning. It is only recently that the Army sought to make a concerted effort to gather historical data that included local corps. We seem to be very much a “here-and-now” organization, often showing very little respect for the records of the past.
Some things we do know. Some, we can infer. We know the names and the dates of appointments of each of the corps officers. We know the corps was, for the first 50 years of its existence, simply called Los Angeles #2 Corps. In talking with other soldiers who have had long association with the corps, they believed its name did not seem to contribute to its unique identity or its obvious pride of membership. This pride often resulted in a competitive spirit among neighboring corps – especially Corps #1 – later named Congress Hall. We might infer, then, that being named #2, like Avis, possibly generated a drive toward continued visible success.
What might be some of the factors that have caused this particular Salvation Army corps to continue to thrive through the years?
A Focus on Spiritual Growth
The Salvation Army #2 Corps/Citadel/ Los Angeles, Hollywood, Pasadena Tabernacle Corps (hereafter simply called “The Tab”) has always had a God-focus. It’s reason for being continues to be the actualization of God’s call to William and Catherine Booth to provide opportunities for spiritual and social redemption for the ‘whosoever’ and to provide congregational support, fellowship and spritual growth for those choosing to make it their church-home. It is Salvation Army through and through.
It is among the highest contributors in the Territory in giving of its soldiery for officership. Its Christian education programs, committed to both children and adults, build insight and understanding of God’s word. It provides application tools of that teaching to help its members manage the array of life’s problems that confront us all. Its peripheral programs all provide environments for spiritual growth.
Music, it seems, has always made a strong contribution to the worship. Its musical groups have sought to use their skill and energy, their excellence and expertise to communicate the message of salvation for all. As a result, it has attracted musicians as members from throughout the nation and around the world. Looking toward the future, it has always worked to provide music education and training for the youth of the corps.
Through the years, the Army has provided this corps with outstanding officers. At no time did the appointment seem random. Careful consideration by Divisional and, often, Territorial leadership seemed evident with each appointment. Each officer brought some area of specialization and excellence and shared it with love. Most knew how to relate. Many were outstanding preachers. Each had deep spiritual convictions which they shared.
Committed to Achievement
It seems clear that a competitive drive continues to focus its motivation on unique achievement. The competition comes from the darkness of a world without light. This drive pushed the corps to work to develop a strong and positive reputation. This drive to achieve, however, did not necessarily focus on statistics. The corps has never been the largest in the Division at any time. Being the largest did not seem to be a consuming ethic for the corps. It strived to be “the best” and built that kind of reputation.
We know that it has always had significant music programs with special emphasis on the traditional brass band, and, in the last 20 years, an outstanding songster brigade. We know that the sons and daughters of officers played important leadership roles as laypersons – especially in the corps’ early years. We know that it has built a multi-generational congregation – with a loyal core group going back three generations and, often, even four. We know that throughout its existence, regardless of its effort, its growth has occurred only minimally through evangelism in its various surrounding neighborhoods. Most of its increases have come from transfers of soldiers from other locales. Often, these soldiers seemed attracted by the corps’ reputation.
For reasons not always clearly discernable, the group of people that comprises the Tabernacle corps has developed for the corps its own personality and a very strong identity through the years. That personality presents a confident and competent image to those that meet it. It felt comfortable, for example, about sending its brass band off to Britain, the mother-country of brass-banding, in 1964. Its London concert venue was in the Royal Albert Hall, and the occasion was the annual Bandmasters’ Councils where excellent musicians listen to presentations with an open score on their laps. Without any sleep due to transportation delays of their overnight flight, the band performed admirably, unintimidated by the presence of the International Staff Band on the same platform. It had no qualms about transporting its songsters on a half-dozen or so international tours beginning in With each tour the brigade added to its image of innovative programming, tremendous crowd appeal and a willingness to engage in “shock” presentations on occasion.
It was driven by a confident, can-do, risk-taking orientation to life built in much the same way as that which is achieved by a “band of brothers” on the battlefield. It says there are people around me on whom I can depend and who depend on me. Therefore, I am able. This kind of belief seems primarily motivated toward a “common good” (self-realization) rather than for self-glorification.
Cohesiveness
This type of personality in a group is the product of group cohesiveness. It’s characterized by trust, warmth, consistency, and acceptance. It’s what happens when the membership believes the group to be attractive, open, and mutually supportive. All groups establish norms – or unwritten rules that guide the operation of the group. Norms are established very quickly within a group. Some aid the group in the achievement of its goals, and some inhibit. Leaders must move quickly to facilitate maintenance of positive norms and inhibit the development of negative norms. Most officers facilitated this, and all lay leaders participated in advancing it.
Examining the norms of that group that became the Tabernacle provides some highly interesting inferential data. These norms include a tendency toward risk-taking, being, for the most part, as non-judgmental as it is possible for humans to be, a strong interest in the personal growth of its membership, a strong desire to want to be together and value the contribution of each, a devotion to families and a transfer of the notion of “family” to the entire group.
The group also felt a sense of public esteem – how important the members feel the group to be as perceived by others. Public esteem requires ego strength within a group generated by its membership through confidence in its leadership.
A serious potential liability of strong group cohesiveness based on the competitive aspects of achievement lies in the possibility of high and thick external boundaries. The group feels very satisfied with itself. Its needs are easily satisfied. The boundary that separates it from the “outside” becomes almost impermeable except to those perceived by the group as assisting it expand its reputation. The Tabernacle seems somewhat aware of this liability and seeks to minimize it. With the enrollment of new members a genuine spirit of welcome is given. It is more evident when the new member is similar in ethnicity and social status to the majority of the current membership.
The leadership of the group must work diligently to maintain and achieve group cohesiveness and to abolish any tendency toward impermeable external boundaries. It is the fundamental responsibility of the leader. No leader, however, is able to achieve a working cohesiveness in a short time.
If one assumes a corps’ leadership begins with the corps officers, this raises the question of the length of appointments of Central Ave./Weller St/Citadel/Tabernacle officers at the corps’ various locations.
In the 19-year period between 1886 and 1905 the corps had 34 officers/couples with an average length of stay of seven months. During the 21 years between 1906 and 1927 the corps officers had an average length of stay of one year and three months. Over the total 40-year period of its beginnings, the corps had 51 officers/couples who stayed an average of slightly more than nine months. It is evident, therefore, that during the forty years of the development of the group’s personality and its cohesiveness, the essential leadership required did not reside in the appointed officer(s).
Observing the level of the group’s cohesiveness over the years, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that it was maintained and developed in its positive direction by the commitment of lay leaders. Much of this lay leadership came from the sons and daughters of officers. Such names as Gooding, Field, Sly, Bradley, Dart, Carroll, Hay, Spiller, Parkhouse, Boyd, Douglas – and many others sprinkle the lists of local officers giving essential leadership in a wide-range of roles.
Additionally, the corps has emphasized family life and has ministered to families throughout its history. Even when located in the very worst sections of the city – on skidrow – families were very much part of the focus. These families were often siblings of earlier families and had a natural bond. In stimulating family life, the corps sponsored a number of means by which the membership was able to come together socially apart from worship and outside the corps building. These included dinners, picnics, retreats, festive holiday events (etc.) There appeared minimal effort of the corps, even in this location, to provide opportunities for the social redemption aspects of holistic ministry.
The band, the tightest and most cohesive group of the corps, had much to do with the high level of cohesiveness achieved by the total group. Prior to the mid seventies and except for the years during World War II, the band was made up of men, who married, brought wives to the corps and raised their children there. This group formed a strong bond through its common goal, through its efforts to achieve and compete, through trips around the country and throughout the Division, and through its participation in athletic leagues sponsored by the Division. Often these men assumed leadership roles as Corps Sergeant Majors, Youth Sergeant Majors, Corps Secretaries and Corps Treasurers.
During much of the period of the thirties, forties and fifties, the corps sponsored a drama group let by Frances Dart. She produced plays every Easter, Christmas and one or two additional religious plays that she took on the road. On two or three of these occasions these dramatic events – musicals and drama – found their ways to both Divisional and Territorial calendars. While involving only a limited number of cast members and support crew, the plays brought people into intense relationships that provided opportunities for self-development, creative expression, and ministry.
The Army itself adds to the cohesiveness of the group. The informality, the opportunities, the internationalism, its altruism, and its wide acceptance by the general public provide the mature Salvationist with a sense of pride and purpose.
Commitment
Commitment involves three essential factors. All must be present within an individual and evident in that person’s behavior if that person is to communicate total commitment. First – there must be exclusivity – a single focus, completely exclusive. No competing drives or motives pull the person away. Second, commitment requires longevity. One does not reveal commitment in a very short time. The committed person is a “stayer.” He or she is around for the duration. Third, commitment involves reciprocity – the committed person finds a source of return on the investment. He or she receives as much as is given.
Certainly, when commitment involves an institution like marriage it must be total and complete. But, when discussing commitment to a group or an idea, is it possible to achieve these factors, given that one may be committed to multiple groups, often, with competing attraction?
It depends. To our multiple groups we assign priorities. The group having the highest priority takes precedence over those with a slightly lower level of attractiveness.
The central core of Tab membership has always demonstrated high levels of commitment and assigned priorities that, for the most part, include God, family, work, the corps and the Army. Most seem to invest much of themselves – often with priorities ordered in just that way – (1) God, (2) family, (3) work, (4) the corps, and (5) the Army. The denominational pull of “the Army” while strong and often merged with the pull of the corps group, appears not to match that of the corps itself when denominational interests and concerns apart from the corps – for example, sacramental worship, or fund raising efforts like harvest festival, or divisional events – compete with corps activities or work or family.. Similarly, occasional commitment to the corps might suffer if a work schedule imposed on a corps activity. The management of conflict involving family and work as well as the corps and work demands more flexibility and probably shifts depending on the circumstances. Often, however, when an important matter confronts the family, it will take precedence over both work and the corps. This illustrates the importance of family involvement within the corps as the family group contributes its own attractiveness to the corps cohesiveness.
Individuals who have committed to the group for many years often have greater levels of commitment. The longevity of the Tabernacle core group is remarkable and goes far to explain the health of the total corps. Additionally, individuals who participate actively in the process of worship or in one of the corps sub-groups with high cohesiveness will find significant returns of their investment of membership.
Shared Leadership
The whole notion of rotating leaders, when the duration of the stay is determined by sources external to the group itself, reduces the group’s health. This is especially true when that leader is highly effective but abruptly removed.
The assignment of Tabernacle officers throughout its entire 117-year history has averaged approximately two years and nine months. These appointments ranged from a low of one month (in the 1880s) to a high of eight years with the appointments of Captains Robert and Marianne Tobin between 1962-1970. A remarkable 29-year period of stability occurred between August 1946 and August 1975 when the corps was led by five outstanding officer couples – all captains. These included Victor and Ardis Newbould, James and Judy Watt, Herb and Donna Wiseman, Robert and Marianne Tobin, and George and Joy Church. Each of them later achieved significant leadership roles in the Territory prior to retirement.
The corps has always been able to provide outstanding lay leadership, deeply committed and willing to work diligently to achieve desirable objectives. Most of the time, these lay leaders have cooperated fully and been supported by the appointed officers. Where there has been disaffection by individuals stemming from disaffection with either the group or the officer, the individuals simply voted with their feet and moved, usually, to a different corps.
Lay leaders in the corps have always seemed to seek more opportunities to participate in decision-making. While recognizing, respecting and accepting the role of the officer, they have tended to perceive them as itinerant ministers with the true leadership of the corps residing in the laity. In some ways, they have tended to view the corps as a “franchise” of the corporation – limited in some obvious respects by corporate policies, goals, and program components – yet able to act autonomously. Despite this attitude, the lay leaders have been able to work very cooperatively over the years with the appointed officers.
Up until the mid-fifties the primary lay consultation body was the corps census board. It met rarely and was not designed to provide discussion and planning relative to program activities. Sensing this, a group of young lay leaders proposed the establishment of a “corps council” as a sounding board for the officer and a forum for lay discussion and participation. Such a council was established during the tenure of Captain Victor Newbould at the Los Angeles Tabernacle. His willingness to risk resulted in complete cooperation and success. It became evident that the lay persons had neither the inclination nor the time to “completely take-over” the operation. What they seemed to want was the opportunity to participate. The corps council idea spread quickly, and a year or so later, Tabernacle soldiers J.K. Wood and Robert Docter were invited to participate on a commission at National Headquarters to develop more fully a role for lay participation in decision-making at the Corps, Divisional, and Territorial levels. The product was a new regulation concerning the development of coups councils with representative bodies established to relate to the divisions and territories.
While the ‘military metaphor’ makes no doubt about the hierarchy of decision-making, it is noted that the letters C.O. no longer stand for “commanding officer.” The letters C.O. now refer to the “corps officer.”
Practical Flexibility
There has seemed, at the Tabernacle, to be a paradoxical streak of both practical flexibility in all program aspects while at the same time firmly committed to the Army’s goals, methods and procedures. This has occasionally caused some tension in the group. Each time the corps slated a move, there were some voices raised in objection. Each time a program component shifted its schedule, there were differences of opinion concerning its wisdom. The total group was able to find ways to navigate difference and use the strength that it brought.
The guiding principle in all matters seems to be – if it works, don’t fix it – if it doesn’t work, try to fix it – if it can’t be fixed move on to something that will work.
For example, one of the most popular moves was from Weller Street to Fourth and Main. This move had almost universal support occurred, primarily, because the Fourth and Main building was the first time the corps had ever moved into brand new facilities, designed especially for them. It was also the last time.
Some things haven’t changed in 75 years. The reasons for this are often practical. For instance, the band and songsters have continued to hold practices on Wednesday night for this entire period of time. The songsters have met prior to band practice. Because the corps is primarily a commuter corps with members traveling long distances, the single night for both practices of groups using many of the same people has benefited travel demands.
At fourth and main, the Sunday evening Salvation meeting was the major Sunday event for soldiers. Open-air services took place at three locations and contributed a great deal to the Corps’s tradition and visibility. When the corps moved to 48th and Hoover, however, no suitable corners for evening open-air services were available. These street corner services were discontinued and the major worship service of the congregation shifted to Sunday morning. Prior to the 11:00 a.m. meeting at Hoover St., the band marched through the neighborhood somewhat like a mobile church bell.
When the corps moved to Hollywood, open-air services were once again established. The congregation often stayed at the corps all day in order to attend both Sunday morning and Sunday evening services.
When it became evident in the mid-seventies in Hollywood that meeting attendance on Sunday evenings placed more people on the platform than in the audience, the “unheard-of” decision was made to discontinue Sunday evening services. This meant that the evening open-air service at Hollywood and Vine had to change its schedule to the afternoon. Captain George Church accepted these recommendations and found a way to compromise with the musical groups. He designed a flyer and advertised to churches everywhere that they could “RENT A BAND” for a Sunday evening service and scheduled the band into these churches once a month. Also, once a month he established Sunday Evening At the Tabernacle (SEAT) at which time the band would prepare a special musical program and invite some guest musicians to participate.
Since being in Pasadena, the timing of the Sunday morning worship service has changed twice – getting a slightly earlier start each time. This allowed time for more lengthy morning meetings while still preserving a highly satisfactory time for youth groups to meet in the afternoon following a corps lunch/fellowship.
